Take the yoni as a symbol, like the cross in relation to the crucifix, free of the presence of the body with it, essentially the image of the virgin with the elements of the body removed, leaving only the surrounding halo, the lines of the clothing.
Is there a case for such a symbol in Christianity? There already is such a symbol, but with the body of Mary superposed and ensconced within it. The desire here is for a wholly abstracted one, but recognizable in its features.
Coming to think of it Jesus in his incarnate form and in the form of the Eucharist represents the ultimate nexus of spirit and matter, spirit and flesh, rarefied energy and dense matter. This body of Christ was formed in the womb of Mary, where it was forged, nourished and infused with the Holy Spirit.
So why then demote this Yoni, this Yoni by which the body of Christ emerged into the world, the gateway to the womb in which the Christ body was forged, the portal used by the Holy Spirit to access the womb of Mary?
There is something quite misogynist about this lack of recognition. What is even more important is the fact of Jesus's parthogenetic conception. As the seed of no physical male was involved the body of Jesus was parthogenetically formed from Mary's genetic material, making the blood of Christ the blood of Mary and the body of Christ the body of Mary. This essentially makes partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ partaking of the Body and Blood of Mary, or of its essence. So why this ongoing demotion of Mary and the yoni?
This Western mind, this intellect, this spirit, comes into the world, comes into biologically-mediated consciousness, incarnates - so to speak, through this womb, this vaginal canal, this vulva, yet cannot bring itself to honour it openly, unreservedly and unashamedly. It is also through this Yoni that it goes onto replicate itself, its thoughts, its opinions, its culture and its ideals and leaves a legacy to the future, that other minds might benefit from its knowledge and its experiences. And yet is still unable to honour it openly.
Take your pick of spiritual figures. Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, Confucius, Sai Baba, Mooji. Whoever they are, whoever they were, they were squeezed out into world through a yoni, most probably with no fanfare and very little ceremony. The yoni is the portal, the gateway by which they chose to enter the world, to enter into a mode where they could communicate their ideas, and still there is no love for it.
Then we move on to Christian women and the way in which the external female genitalia are held in contemporary Western society. They are identified with shaven regions giving adult women the appearance of prepubescent girls, Brazilian wax jobs, double/triple vaginal/anal penetration, and other fantasies porn movie directors come up with. Prostitutes complain that young male customers approach them with all kinds of preconceived notions based on what they see in porn, and adult women are nervous and shy about their parts because they don't match up to what they see in porn.
Every Christian woman has a yoni, a yoni which is no different in form and function from Mary's and is equally capable. Why shouldn't it be given the same due and respect as Mary's? Theirs might not give birth to an august personage as Christ, but as far as their role in producing productive worthy members of the community they are no less worthy. Would there be more respect of women in society if the yoni was acknowledged and held in higher regard? The Eastern Orthodox reference to Mother of God as Theotokos, Bearer of God, sounds quite apt, a direct reference to the uterus. If the Holiest of Holies was conceived and borne in such a vessel why shouldn't it be worthy of acknowledgement, and why shouldn't the bearer of that vessel, Mary herself, the woman, the form, be worthy of acknowledgement?
Having a more abstract take on reality, which I suspect is and has been an essential though underemphasized aspect of Christianity, shouldn't there be a different social take on womanhood and motherhood, in viewing the associated forms as means by which the intelligence enters a mode which gives it a richer playground for its forms, attributes and capabilities, looking beyond the biological function, looking at as the means by which the energies the spirit and the intellect play on are manifested?
I am getting ahead of myself here and beginning to ramble, but I want to bring it down to a means by which young women and young men, with more emphasis on young women, have a better appreciation and regard for the extra hole between the women's legs, adopt a less cavalier attitude toward to it, and take it beyond something which is the subject of titillation, exhibitionism, accessorization, misogyny and flat out abuse as a result of males impressing their fantasies in the psyches of females.
The point I am making here does not exclude yonis with Mary in them, or more explicit ones, in so far as they dissociate the image from pornography and titillation. All of them have their place, with or without the image of Mary in them, the purely abstracted one, the abstracted one with recognizable elements of the yoni within it, and the undisguised one, the explicit vulva.